Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Cavia porcellus" differant

← Differentia superior Differentia proxima →

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Emendatio ex 17:47, 8 Ianuarii 2012

Aristes

What does arites mean? Que significa aristes? Qoud significat aristes? Precious stome? Joya?Gemmane? Acinumne?Jondel 04:52, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly they were going for aristas? —Muke 13:40, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head of grain or something like that. nice! How about acutulior?Jondel 13:53, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks like the comparative of acutulus. I'm not sure what they're going for in that sentence, especially with ferrae (I suspect 'ferae' is meant—but 'wild cavies are a little sharper every day'?). —Mucius Tever 19:16, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative, yes. But not standard/recognized latin videtur(it seems).I googled it and found many references as 'sharper/smarter'. I would like to confirm if this is standard/reognized latin.

Conception and emendation

I didn't conceive this article and am trying to understand a lot of what the author is saying with help from the other language wikis. I hope I will be able to improve this. Your help of course is highly appreciated.Jondel 13:37, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I wonder why it's at 'cobaia' instead of 'cavia' (influence from Iberian languages, I guess?) —Muke 13:40, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added "Fontes desiderati" therefore (sorry, I don't have time to do the checking right now). Andrew Dalby 13:45, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh mee toooo. It's late at night in this side of the hemisphere.--Jondel 13:54, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The taxobox shows it's an animal, and it therefore needs its ordinary Latin name; hence the new lemma. Note that the species epithet, porcellus, is a masculine noun ('little pig'), which stands in apposition to the genus name, a feminine noun. IacobusAmor 14:06, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, Iacobe! Andrew Dalby 14:39, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intro sentence seems to suggest a common name or genus is in mind, not the species ("X is a mammal of the caviid family originating from one or many of the species of the genus Cavia"). It looks like it was written when the page was still at a page that could be about cavies in general, but wasn't rewritten when the page was moved to Cavia porcellus in particular. (The history doesn't support this hypothesis, though—I can't tell how this sentence came to be at all.) —Mucius Tever 19:16, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the intro because I believe the original article is about Guinea pigs/Caviis. The long hair type from Peru and 'cobaia' were give-aways. (If erroneous which is unlikely, it should be corrected.)I uhh, am no biologist am quessing there are many species like dogs and cats. I will work on confirming this info. Jondel 10:12, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you wrote this part of the intro. The first sentence is saying that the one species "Cavia porcellus" has individuals from one or many species in the Cavia genus. This would be appropriate if the lemma was "Cavia" (=guinea pig/cavy) generally—a cavia could be anything in the genus Cavia—but the lemma is "Cavia porcellus") (=domestic guinea pig) which is only the one species. If the page is going to be about all species of guinea pigs and cavies, it should be moved to cavia and the first sentence updated. If it's only going to be about the domestic guinea pig, the first sentence needs to be rewritten. (It might need to be rewritten anyway. It's worded awkwardly and looks like it could also mean that the species itself comes from multiple species, but this would be unusual for a mammal, and I don't think en.wiki suggests this is the case.) —Mucius Tever 17:47, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Linea 18: / Linea 18: @@
 The intro sentence seems to suggest a common name or genus is in mind, not the species ("X is a mammal of the caviid family originating from one or many of the species of the genus ''Cavia''").  It looks like it was written when the page was still at a page that could be about cavies in general, but wasn't rewritten when the page was moved to ''Cavia porcellus'' in particular. (The history doesn't support this hypothesis, though—I can't tell how this sentence came to be at all.)  —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 19:16, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
 :I created the intro because I believe the original article is about Guinea pigs/Caviis. The long hair type from Peru and 'cobaia' were give-aways. (If erroneous which is unlikely, it should be corrected.)I uhh, am no biologist am quessing there are many species like dogs and cats. I will work on confirming this info.    [[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 10:12, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
+::It doesn't look like you wrote this part of the intro.  The first sentence is saying that the ''one'' species "Cavia porcellus" has individuals from one or many species in the Cavia genus.  This would be appropriate if the lemma was "[[:en:Cavia|Cavia]]" (=guinea pig/cavy) generally—a ''cavia'' could be anything in the genus ''Cavia''—but the lemma is "[[:en:Cavia porcellus|Cavia porcellus]]") (=domestic guinea pig) which is only the one species. If the page is going to be about all species of guinea pigs and cavies, it should be moved to [[cavia]] and the first sentence updated.  If it's only going to be about the domestic guinea pig, the first sentence needs to be rewritten.  (It might need to be rewritten anyway. It's worded awkwardly and looks like it could also mean that the species itself comes from multiple species, but this would be unusual for a mammal, and I don't think en.wiki suggests this is the case.)  —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 17:47, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)